재심 신체검사 장애 상이 등급 판정 처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff entered the Army on February 18, 1978 and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on April 30, 2012.
B. On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff sustained from the harm of both the remaining parts during military service, etc. during the process of opening the military.” On September 14, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal on the ground that the above application was difficult to recognize that there was a substantial causal relationship with the military duty or education and training.
Fidelity Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the above rejection disposition through an administrative appeal, and the first instance court was sentenced to a judgment against the Plaintiff, but the appellate court was sentenced to partial winning of the judgment revoking the part of the above rejection disposition regarding the “pro-pro-pro-promulation of the opening of the right” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
In accordance with the purport of the judgment and the above, the defendant decided that the plaintiff's application constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State among the plaintiff's awards, and notified the plaintiff of the result on January 29, 2016. On February 29, 2016, the National Veterans Hospital determined that the plaintiff's new physical examination conducted with respect to the plaintiff constitutes class 5 and class 45 of the disability rating, and notified the plaintiff of the result on March 10, 2016.
(v) Accordingly, on June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for a re-examination and conducted a re-examination at the Central Veterans Hospital, but was determined to fall under class 5 and class 45 of the same grade of injury, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result on July 29, 2016.
⑹ 원고는 이 사건 처분에 불복하여 중앙행정심판위원회에 행정심판을 청구하였으나, 중앙행정심판위원회는 2016. 2. 13. 위 행정심판청구를 기각하는 재결을 하였다.
【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s 1, 2, 3, 28, 35 (including additional numbers), Eul’s 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. (i) Whether the instant disposition is lawful, Presidential Decree No. 23885, Jun. 27, 2012.